OBL(UBL) Killed

[spence]

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?

Hey Jim, a good young friend of mine looks to be heading to Parris Island soon. I told him to make sure he addresses his instructor as "you", doesn't bother with those silly drills, hymns and creed, and is sure to get his full nights rest.

Good thing he's in great shape

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.

What was predictable was the Right jumping on this immediately in an attempt to free the Bush Admin from controversy over the use of torture. Hell, Obama's announcement wasn't even over before they were out shouting SEE! SEE!! SEE!!!.

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

What I have seen, is a quite clear assertion that states that given what is believed to be known, the success of this mission doesn't prove that torture is effective.

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post

What I've asked is that if you disagree and believe that this event does prove torture works, present a line of reasoning that backs up your argument.

So far nobody seems to be able to accomplish this task. Instead I hear misleading over simplifications and lofty philosophical remarks which miss the question actually being asked. When challenged, the response is not facts or reasoning but ad hominem attacks...quite predictably...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

-spence

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.

I could use Dynamite to take down a tree, and you bet that it'll work. Doesn't mean it was the necessary tool for the job.

Quite honestly, I don't give a damn about putting people under the bucket. Hell, if you think they might hold valuable information that would protect this country, get out the wet sponges connected to a car battery.

On the other hand, just because waterboarding *may* have gotten them information that assisted to killing bin Laden, it doesn't mean that they would not have been able to extract the information through other, less tortuous means.

[Raven]

like 50 hits worth of LSD
then wear pig costumes
holding forks and knives

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

-spence

maybe

Maverick Malice - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?



-spence

No, I cannot. But even if I could think of a credible case where that happened, you would deny it. Because there IS a credible case of someone saying waterboarding works (CIA Chief Mr Panetta), and that wasn't enough to satisfy you....so please stop pretending that you listen to credible arguments, because you do not.

And if "credibility" were a pre-requisite for posting, no one here would have ever heard of you...

[Raven]